9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Mr. Ashok Jindal The appellants are in appeal against the impugned orders wherein the demand of amount of clandestine removal has been confirmed along with interest and penalties on both the appellants have been imposed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 20/21.01.2012 a search was carried out wherein the certain inputs and finished goods were found short and certain loose slips were a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion was conducted on the respective buyers of the goods which alleged to have purchased goods clandestinely removed by the appellants, therefore, the demands against the appellants are not sustainable. He also submits that, as the appellant paid 25% duty as penalty, therefore, the penalty imposed in the impugned order is to be reduced to this extent. He also submitted that the penalty imposed on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these loose slips they have cleared the goods clandestinely. In that circumstances, the loose slips were found which have been explained by appellants themselves. Therefore, the Revenue was not required to ascertain the fact whether the details of buyers mentioned in loose slips have been received the goods or not? The buyer's name mentioned in the show cause notice may be fake, therefore, no inve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore, the penalty is reduced to 25% of duty involved. 8. Further, I find that the penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been imposed on the Director of the Company who has accepted that they have cleared the goods clandestinely. Therefore, penalty on the Director is rightly imposed. Further, I find that the penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/-, in comparison to the duty of Rs. 8,00,000/-, is excessively high, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
